Totally agree. The more we can show people the advantages of SW representations, the better. Eric and I are trying to come up with a "message and explanation" with a couple of really concrete examples to address the question of "isn't this just another silver bullet?" Hopefully we can make some progress on that in the next few weeks. Also, I (and any others who happen to be at the upcoming HL7 meeting should a) try and have an organizational meeting, and b) sit down with Wayne (now CDISC CTO) and talk through some of this with him. I know from talking with him at my last CDISC BoD meeting (Sept 2011) and the more recent BRIDG BoD meeting (June 2012) that is interested in the subject.
charlie
________________________________________
From: Kerstin Forsberg [kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:34 PM
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards
Great discussion in the meeting today and on the email list: BRIDG/OWL, FHIR/SW, Extensional and Intensional /" design-time" and "run-time" models, ... a lot of interesting things seems to converge for how to model patient data.
At the same time I think it would be useful to explore a RDF implementation of today's CDISC SDTM domains (and Supplement Qualifier) data structures. That is,RDF triples and as an alt. to ODM/XML for data exchange.
So far my focus has been on pushing CDISC, and NCI, towards "Linked Clinical Data Standards", see http://kerfors.blogspot.se/2012/05/semantic-models-for-cdisc-based.html, as a prereq. to be able to get to "Linked Clinical Data"
Kind Regards
Kerstin